Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the audienceLadder validation constraint, the default-closed flag behavior, and the caveat "a limit does not itself approve wording" — but it never addresses the destructive/overwrite or revision-check implications the annotations imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence carries distinct information (scope, validation, defaults, caveat).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, 11-parameter mutation with zero schema descriptions, the description supplies useful defaults and a validation rule, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. It still leaves most parameters and the overwrite/revision behavior unaddressed, so it is only partially adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden. It clarifies only a handful — maxAudience's relationship to audienceLadder and the default values of the three allow* flags — leaving name, notes, status, boardId, channel, and expectedRevision entirely undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Store the statement limit ... for one channel") and distinguishes the object from siblings like save_approved_statement by calling it a limit rather than wording. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase "the user has explicitly approved" hints at a precondition, but there is no guidance on when to use this over save_approved_statement, save_approved_cause, or list_statement_limits. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements are present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.